Technology FAIL for Prenda, who just performed the email equivalent of answer the phone and saying "There is no service to the number you just dialed so hang and never call me again because I won't answer you!"

For all of their threatening of people with serious possible ramifications if they don't pay on a bogus charge, they go ahead and refuse to pay after a federal judge has come to a verdict with sanctions. And the immaturity of the response is astounding! My children can read my work email so I will refuse to read it??

WOW, that response had me laughing very hard. I'd love to see the whole email chain, as it seems very unlikely that Morgan Pietz was cursing at Paul Duffy via email, as implied by that hilarious reply. What the hell is this guy thinking??

I don't get why they have to pay interest since they are not taking out a loan. Is this just a tacit way to say that they are going to be retroactively found guilty? The legal system is over my head in the arcane way it operates, which of course is why, just so you'll need a lawyer to understand it. At least I can take consolation in the fact that it couldn't happen to a more deserved firm.

Technology FAIL for Prenda, who just performed the email equivalent of answer the phone and saying "There is no service to the number you just dialed so hang and never call me again because I won't answer you!"

I'd better lead with this: I'm not defending the Prendacious Perp! I believe it to be as as you suggest in your second paragraph, particularly given the delay between when the original message was sent and when the fake auto-reply was received. Scumbag flag!

With that said, some spam filters DO auto-reply, though typically that's done at the mail server, not on the client. On the client side, it's usually just flagging, moving, deleting, etc. But all mail server software packages that I have seen, do offer an auto-reply option, with a canned (preset; fixed) message to be sent to the sender. I consider it a bad idea, myself ("yo, dawg, got yer spam, send more!"), but there are sometimes good reasons for setting it up like that.

I don't get why they have to pay interest since they are not taking out a loan. Is this just a tacit way to say that they are going to be retroactively found guilty? The legal system is over my head in the arcane way it operates, which of course is why, just so you'll need a lawyer to understand it. At least I can take consolation in the fact that it couldn't happen to a more deserved firm.

Interest, in this case, is a penalty for failure to pay on time -- specifically, the $81K they were supposed to pay last month. Even though the money is going into a bond, it is not going to John Doe and Pietz when it was supposed to, so it is not paid on time. The bond assures that the money will be there to pay Doe and Pietz when the appeals fail, but still the penalty for lack of prompt payment applies -- and Pietz is demanding that this penalty be included in the bond.

If Prenda files the bond for the $238K total the Judge ordered, and then drops the appeal next week, then the case ends and Pietz/Doe gets what's due to him -- which is the $81K plus the 10% interest California law allows, plus perhaps other incidental things I'm not considering (I believe the $7000/day sanction goes to the courts, not Pietz/Doe, but I could be wrong). Anything left goes back to Prenda.

Another way to think of it is that, according to the Court order, the $81K belongs to Doe, not Prenda, so right now Prenda is effectively borrowing it from Doe, and California allows a 10% interest charge as long as Prenda has Doe's money.

Technology FAIL for Prenda, who just performed the email equivalent of answer the phone and saying "There is no service to the number you just dialed so hang and never call me again because I won't answer you!"

I'd better lead with this: I'm not defending the Prendacious Perp! I believe it to be as as you suggest in your second paragraph, particularly given the delay between when the original message was sent and when the fake auto-reply was received. Scumbag flag!

With that said, some spam filters DO auto-reply, though typically that's done at the mail server, not on the client. On the client side, it's usually just flagging, moving, deleting, etc. But all mail server software packages that I have seen, do offer an auto-reply option, with a canned (preset; fixed) message to be sent to the sender. I consider it a bad idea, myself ("yo, dawg, got yer spam, send more!"), but there are sometimes good reasons for setting it up like that.

If they have in fact set these emails to go to spam, that would be even WORSE, because it would prove they are willfully ignoring and avoiding court orders.

I don't get why they have to pay interest since they are not taking out a loan. Is this just a tacit way to say that they are going to be retroactively found guilty? The legal system is over my head in the arcane way it operates, which of course is why, just so you'll need a lawyer to understand it. At least I can take consolation in the fact that it couldn't happen to a more deserved firm.

A debt was incurredAn invoice specifying payment due was givenOnce the "Grace Period" expires then interest is added to the unpaid balance

The various Does who have hired a lawyer and are covered by this case have not received the money to cover their expenses.The lawyer who presented the bill has not been paidThe court who directed that penalties should be paid to the court system has not been paid

A bond has been posted. That simply means that a responsible Third Party will pay the final bill (up to the amount of the bond) if the court orders the money to be paid out to the parties the court declares to have rightful claims to payment. Since there is a $7000 a day court penalty while the Prenda Group prepare their defense at this point and the opposing lawyers are still billing time to this case, the amount due goes up. In addition, to curtail legal stalling of payments, the court also adds interest calculated at 10% annual interest, which will be calculated in shorter intervals and compounded (interest on unpaid interest). The standard period for compounding interest is daily.

If the case goes in favor of Prenda and court penalties are cancelled, along with awards for opposition costs, then the bond will be cancelled and the Prenda Group will only be out the fee charged by the Bonding Company. A Bonding Company is a specialized insurance business. They issue insurance guaranteeing the availability of money should the debtor be unable to pay in the event payment of a debt is required. The best known branch of the business is Bail Bondsmen.

The Prenda Group also had the option of paying the full amount into a no-access bank account with orders to the bank to release the money only at the court's direction, but doing that would have been admitting that they aren't as penniless as they have been claiming

Technology FAIL for Prenda, who just performed the email equivalent of answer the phone and saying "There is no service to the number you just dialed so hang and never call me again because I won't answer you!"

I'd better lead with this: I'm not defending the Prendacious Perp! I believe it to be as as you suggest in your second paragraph, particularly given the delay between when the original message was sent and when the fake auto-reply was received. Scumbag flag!

With that said, some spam filters DO auto-reply, though typically that's done at the mail server, not on the client. On the client side, it's usually just flagging, moving, deleting, etc. But all mail server software packages that I have seen, do offer an auto-reply option, with a canned (preset; fixed) message to be sent to the sender. I consider it a bad idea, myself ("yo, dawg, got yer spam, send more!"), but there are sometimes good reasons for setting it up like that.

Its also worth noting that just because Pietz sent the email at a certain time, does not necessarily mean that Duffy's spam filter/mail server received it instantaneously. The email protocols do not provide any guarantees with respect to timely delivery. I've noticed lag times of upwards of an hour before.

If they have in fact set these emails to go to spam, that would be even WORSE, because it would prove they are willfully ignoring and avoiding court orders.

He's avoiding communications with another attorney, which isn't the same as avoiding court orders, but trying to do so in a way that suggests that he didn't do it intentionally. This may cause a fallback to registered letters, which only lengthens the process and risks pushing up the penalties.

Technology FAIL for Prenda, who just performed the email equivalent of answer the phone and saying "There is no service to the number you just dialed so hang and never call me again because I won't answer you!"

I'd better lead with this: I'm not defending the Prendacious Perp! I believe it to be as as you suggest in your second paragraph, particularly given the delay between when the original message was sent and when the fake auto-reply was received. Scumbag flag!

With that said, some spam filters DO auto-reply, though typically that's done at the mail server, not on the client. On the client side, it's usually just flagging, moving, deleting, etc. But all mail server software packages that I have seen, do offer an auto-reply option, with a canned (preset; fixed) message to be sent to the sender. I consider it a bad idea, myself ("yo, dawg, got yer spam, send more!"), but there are sometimes good reasons for setting it up like that.

You can set a "Mail was received" message for any folder. The giveaway here is the 45 minute delay, the usual delay due to delivery lag is 0 to 5 minutes.

For those who use an acknowledge message, remember not to Reply All (In contact list)That gets messy very fast

Technology FAIL for Prenda, who just performed the email equivalent of answer the phone and saying "There is no service to the number you just dialed so hang and never call me again because I won't answer you!"

I'd better lead with this: I'm not defending the Prendacious Perp! I believe it to be as as you suggest in your second paragraph, particularly given the delay between when the original message was sent and when the fake auto-reply was received. Scumbag flag!

With that said, some spam filters DO auto-reply, though typically that's done at the mail server, not on the client. On the client side, it's usually just flagging, moving, deleting, etc. But all mail server software packages that I have seen, do offer an auto-reply option, with a canned (preset; fixed) message to be sent to the sender. I consider it a bad idea, myself ("yo, dawg, got yer spam, send more!"), but there are sometimes good reasons for setting it up like that.

True, but if that was a real spam filter auto-reply, that means Mr Duffy marked Pietz's email as "junk" in order for it to be flagged as spam.

I don't get why they have to pay interest since they are not taking out a loan. Is this just a tacit way to say that they are going to be retroactively found guilty? The legal system is over my head in the arcane way it operates, which of course is why, just so you'll need a lawyer to understand it. At least I can take consolation in the fact that it couldn't happen to a more deserved firm.

In California debtors can be charged interest on their unsecured debt; it's statutory there, so I'm not surprised to see it also apply to court fines. I'm sure the Prenda team is well aware of how things work there, and if not they're getting schooled quick.

I wouldn't be surprised to see seminars and elective courses just on this one case in the next couple of years. Serve a meal with it and get dinner AND a show!

Its also worth noting that just because Pietz sent the email at a certain time, does not necessarily mean that Duffy's spam filter/mail server received it instantaneously. The email protocols do not provide any guarantees with respect to timely delivery. I've noticed lag times of upwards of an hour before.

True, but given that the "auto reply" came back 45 minutes after Peitz sent his follow up email, it strongly suggests Duffy spent that time writing and setting up his childish "auto reply."

Technology FAIL for Prenda, who just performed the email equivalent of answer the phone and saying "There is no service to the number you just dialed so hang and never call me again because I won't answer you!"

I'd better lead with this: I'm not defending the Prendacious Perp! I believe it to be as as you suggest in your second paragraph, particularly given the delay between when the original message was sent and when the fake auto-reply was received. Scumbag flag!

With that said, some spam filters DO auto-reply, though typically that's done at the mail server, not on the client. On the client side, it's usually just flagging, moving, deleting, etc. But all mail server software packages that I have seen, do offer an auto-reply option, with a canned (preset; fixed) message to be sent to the sender. I consider it a bad idea, myself ("yo, dawg, got yer spam, send more!"), but there are sometimes good reasons for setting it up like that.

True, but if that was a real spam filter auto-reply, that means Mr Duffy marked Pietz's email as "junk" in order for it to be flagged as spam.

Not quite. Spam filters usually use machine learning algorithms to predict which messages are spam. Those algorithms are not perfect, sometimes not even close to perfect.

Technology FAIL for Prenda, who just performed the email equivalent of answer the phone and saying "There is no service to the number you just dialed so hang and never call me again because I won't answer you!"

I'd better lead with this: I'm not defending the Prendacious Perp! I believe it to be as as you suggest in your second paragraph, particularly given the delay between when the original message was sent and when the fake auto-reply was received. Scumbag flag!

With that said, some spam filters DO auto-reply, though typically that's done at the mail server, not on the client. On the client side, it's usually just flagging, moving, deleting, etc. But all mail server software packages that I have seen, do offer an auto-reply option, with a canned (preset; fixed) message to be sent to the sender. I consider it a bad idea, myself ("yo, dawg, got yer spam, send more!"), but there are sometimes good reasons for setting it up like that.

True, but if that was a real spam filter auto-reply, that means Mr Duffy marked Pietz's email as "junk" in order for it to be flagged as spam.

Not quite. Spam filters usually use machine learning algorithms to predict which messages are spam. Those algorithms are not perfect, sometimes not even close to perfect.

Again true, but its not often a spam filter algorithm will flag a multi-message conversation, mid conversation, as being spam.

I realize Duffy isn't a stellar attorney, but what sort of attorney - particularly one who deals with porn copyright litigation - has his email accessible to others, including his impressionable children?

I realize Duffy isn't a stellar attorney, but what sort of attorney - particularly one who deals with porn copyright litigation - has his email accessible to others, including his impressionable children?

Wonder why no one commented on the obvious blooper: "I must place you in my "spam" filter," not "folder." Reading a lot of Prenda's court documents, I know that these guys are very sloppy: Duffy as a plaintiff signing pleadings as "Paul Duffy, one of its attorneys," etc. Here is the latest example:

"AF Holdings, LLC (“AF Holdings”) hereby apples to this Court for an order staying the enforcement..."

Technology FAIL for Prenda, who just performed the email equivalent of answer the phone and saying "There is no service to the number you just dialed so hang and never call me again because I won't answer you!"

I'd better lead with this: I'm not defending the Prendacious Perp! I believe it to be as as you suggest in your second paragraph, particularly given the delay between when the original message was sent and when the fake auto-reply was received. Scumbag flag!

With that said, some spam filters DO auto-reply, though typically that's done at the mail server, not on the client. On the client side, it's usually just flagging, moving, deleting, etc. But all mail server software packages that I have seen, do offer an auto-reply option, with a canned (preset; fixed) message to be sent to the sender. I consider it a bad idea, myself ("yo, dawg, got yer spam, send more!"), but there are sometimes good reasons for setting it up like that.

True, but if that was a real spam filter auto-reply, that means Mr Duffy marked Pietz's email as "junk" in order for it to be flagged as spam.

Not quite. Spam filters usually use machine learning algorithms to predict which messages are spam. Those algorithms are not perfect, sometimes not even close to perfect.

Again true, but its not often a spam filter algorithm will flag a multi-message conversation, mid conversation, as being spam.

Good point - on the client side. There the process may be: "is the sender in the recipient's contact list/address book? If yes, it is not spam - don't even check it (but DO A/V scan attachments, etc.)." So, in midstream, it's extremely unlikely to have been automatically flagged as spam unless the recipient manually and intentionally marked it as such, blacklisted the sender's address, whatever. Again, though, on the server side that may not be the case, as the process may not involve checking address lists, because they may not even be available to the server. Too many unknowns!

As for the delay: yes, I imagine that we've all seen inexplicably long delays in delivery of mail messages. I certainly have, many, many times. And there's always a valid and logical, technical reason for that, but I'm not willing to bet that there are any in this case. I choose to believe that the rejection notice was generated and sent manually. Why? Because INTERNET USER COMMENTS, that's why.

If they have in fact set these emails to go to spam, that would be even WORSE, because it would prove they are willfully ignoring and avoiding court orders.

He's avoiding communications with another attorney, which isn't the same as avoiding court orders, but trying to do so in a way that suggests that he didn't do it intentionally. This may cause a fallback to registered letters, which only lengthens the process and risks pushing up the penalties.

The fact remains thought that when Judge Wright issued his order that Prenda and the gang had to pay the $81,319.72 sanction costs.

In the flowing order it also stated that Prenda and the parties associated with the order were to have a meeting with Pietz to work out the terms and conditions for the Superseads Bond in agreeable terms before the bond was posted with the court.

Duffy had tried to claim he couldn't get a hold of Pietz to do this, Pietz though in his submission to Judge Wright rejecting the first bond and the reasons why and his thoughts on why the bond should be increased happened to include his emails to Duffy which included Duffys rude reply of:

" You had no substantive points. If you think of some and can articulate them coherently I would be glad to consider them. Thanks for thinking of me.”

Obviously Duffy had no plans to conference with Pietz about the bond and neither did the rest of the Prenda gang except Gibbs. This is why Judge Wright ruled as he did.

I think Duffy, Hansemier and Steele's arrogance are going to cost them more money yet.

Lets see if they post the rest of the bond requirements as order by Judge Wright, they only have 14 days, which I doubt they will do it by. Expect a last minute filing and a lot of whining and pouting in it.

I will be disappointed when this whole sordid and sleazy bad lawyer story comes to an end. The weasels in the wild will finally be able to hold their noses up and sniff the wind and mot smell the fetid stink of their collective name being dragged through some Florida swamp. The whole Prenda group besmirches the lowly name of 'attorney' and somehow has managed to drag it below the surface to the level of bottom feeder that they(Prenda) most certainly are.

I realize that the legal profession most definitely has a place in the world. I have been screwed over and recently in a legal proceeding due to incompetence, ignorance and laziness. I also realize these characteristics apply equally to all parts of human activity. The case at hand has these elements in spades and if it weren't for the quite obvious elements of conspiracy, it would be somewhat expected and excusable. The refusal to end this farce and push it into the more rarefied courts they so obviously seek illustrates the arrogance and ignorance that comes with too much easy money.

I realize Duffy isn't a stellar attorney, but what sort of attorney - particularly one who deals with porn copyright litigation - has his email accessible to others, including his impressionable children?

Yeah. If it were true - which I very much doubt - it would be highly unprofessional, and perhaps even illegal. If you email your attorney, don't you have an expectation of confidentiality?